New bill demands “neutral net neutrality,” hamstrings FCC

A GOP congressman is fighting to gut net neutrality, pressuring the FCC not to …

In an effort to make network neutrality impossible for the FCC temperament, Congressman Cliff Stearns (R-FL) yesterday introduced a new bill (PDF) that would require "neutral network neutrality." And no, that's not a typo.

The bill would make it difficult for the FCC to proceed with its preferred approach to network neutrality, "reclassifying" Internet access as a telecommunications service over which the FCC has "common carrier" authority.

Before this can happen, the bill demands that the FCC send a lengthy report to Congress showing that "there is a market failure in the provision of such information service or Internet access service" and that "there is substantial evidence that the market failure is causing specific, identified harm to consumers by preventing a substantial number of consumers nationwide from accessing a substantial amount of lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice on a continuing basis."

The FCC would have to conduct a detailed cost-benefit analysis of its new rules, could only propose rules that are "the least restrictive necessary to address the market failure and specific harm to consumers," and could not prohibit managed services (in which ISPs offer their own voice or video services that directly compete with other over-the-top Internet offerings, but can prioritize these own services on the grounds that they are "separate" from the Internet).

The FCC also could not prohibit network management, and it could not interfere with "measures designed to prevent or deter unauthorized or illegal activity, including copyright infringement."

Taken together, the bill's measures would gut most network neutrality rules, since they prohibit the FCC from regulating congestion management and quality of service decisions by ISPs.

Completely neutral

Stearns' bill also requires the novel concept of "neutral network neutrality." This requires any new FCC regulations that meet the above criteria to be enforced "on a nondiscriminatory basis between and among broadband network providers, service providers, application providers, and content providers."

In other words, whatever rules the FCC develops would need to be applied equally to Verizon, YouTube, Google, etc. It's not at all clear from the bill what this means; the target does not appear to be actual content (i.e., YouTube somehow displaying a "neutral" set of videos) but the connections between and among providers that take place outside the public-facing ISP networks.

ISPs have long complained that they are being unfairly targeted by network neutrality, even as backbone operators or content delivery networks would be exempt from the rules.

In a statement announcing the bill, Stearns called the FCC's network neutrality plan a "partisan maneuver to regulate the Internet.... It's important to note that broadband is an information service outside the reach of Title II. This point was affirmed by the US Supreme Court in its Brand X decision in 2005."

Perhaps Stearns would like to revisit the Brand X decision before opining on it. That case, about the FCC's decision not to open up cable networks to competitors, did not conclude that broadband was "outside the reach of Title II." The Supreme Court concluded that the FCC had the right to decide which title covered broadband services—a very different thing indeed.

In fact, the Court's decision makes clear that "the Commission is free within the limits of reasoned interpretation to change course if it adequately justifies the change."

As for the Court's own view on the matter: "we express no view on those matters." When Brand X complained that the Commission was treating cable networks and DSL lines in different ways, the Court had "no view on how the Commission should, or lawfully may, classify DSL service."

Broadband is only "outside the reach of Title II" because the FCC decided to make it so; now it wants to make a different decision. Stearns' new bill aims to make that decision very difficult indeed—and top Republicans are joining him in pressuring the FCC to stand down.

He has an R next to his name and it appears to be utter nonsense... I suspect it's goal is to protect "small businesses" like ATT, Comcast, & Verizon.

Before anyone accuses me of partisan asshattery... if he had a D next to his name and was promoting such nonsense, there would probably be some stupid motive involving the bricks of money in the freezer and such.

The FCC would have to conduct a detailed cost-benefit analysis of its new rules, could only propose rules that are "the least restrictive necessary to address the market failure and specific harm to consumers," and could not prohibit managed services (in which ISPs offer their own voice or video services that directly compete with other over-the-top Internet offerings, but can prioritize these own services on the grounds that they are "separate" from the Internet).

The first sentence makes a lot of sense, and is just common sense. Superstitious fears about events that cannot be shown to be actually occurring certainly should never form the basis of any kind of regulation.

The second part, as phrased, doesn't make any sense. If ISPs are going to say that their own voice and video services are not part of the Internet, then how could anyone else's voice and video services be anything but "separate" from the Internet, too? Perhaps they mean, though, that a cable company prioritizing its cable-TV broadcasting and its phone services over its entire Internet service would have nothing to do with net neutrality since such behavior would have nothing to do with the cable company's delivery of Internet service in general--because neither the voice or video services would be directly accessible from the Internet. If that's what they mean, then that is quite understandable. I'm not quite clear, though, on how Comcast's phone service fundamentally differs from, say, Vonage's, in terms of those phone services leveraging the Internet. So the point with respect to the video services is fairly solid; but the point about the phone service is far less clear.

Quote:

The FCC also could not prohibit network management, and it could not interfere with "measures designed to prevent or deter unauthorized or illegal activity, including copyright infringement."

As to the part about network management, I am not aware of any proposed net neutrality rules anywhere that prohibit an ISP from managing its Internet network.

As to the part about "measures designed to prevent or deter unauthorized or illegal activity, including copyright infringement," you are dreaming if you think any net neutrality rules will be enacted which will eschew such massive inflictions of non-neutrality. That's the whole reason I am and always have been opposed to any kind of "net neutral" legislation--it undoubtedly will be used as a springboard to enact just this kind of draconian non-neutral crap, and enshrine it into law. I am absolutely certain that net neutrality rules if passed will ensure a very non-neutral Internet as a result. For some groups, this is their entire goal for getting this kind of regulation or legislation enacted. The ISPs are not police or copyright cops, and they should never, ever be cast in that mold.

Quote:

Taken together, the bill's measures would gut most network neutrality rules, since they prohibit the FCC from regulating congestion management and quality of service decisions by ISPs.

How, pray tell, can the FCC "regulate Internet congestion" as it may occur daily? Obviously, such congestion is managed on a daily basis, and so it seems to me that in order for the FCC to "regulate" same they'd need to work at the boards full time every day as ISP employees so that they could "regulate" such congestion as it may occur...

One last point to add: in this context, what is the essential difference in meaning between the words "regulate" and "manage"?

I like the idea of slowing down the FCC. They get their foot in the door by mandating "network neutrality" which people like. The next year they might get lobbied by the RIAA/MPAA and mandate blocking all copyright infringing materials, or objectionable content, or who knows what else they'll try to block or interfere with. I don't want the FCC to get a foot in the door to start regulating broadband.

I have to disagree with the bill in that it allows ISPs to prioritize their own competing video/voice services over competitors. That should be a clear violation of antitrust laws. Other than that piece I'm ok with the bill blocking the FCC.

The FCC would have to conduct a detailed cost-benefit analysis of its new rules, could only propose rules that are "the least restrictive necessary to address the market failure and specific harm to consumers," and could not prohibit managed services (in which ISPs offer their own voice or video services that directly compete with other over-the-top Internet offerings, but can prioritize these own services on the grounds that they are "separate" from the Internet).

The first sentence makes a lot of sense, and is just common sense. Superstitious fears about events that cannot be shown to be actually occurring certainly should never form the basis of any kind of regulation.

The second part, as phrased, doesn't make any sense. If ISPs are going to say that their own voice and video services are not part of the Internet, then how could anyone else's voice and video services be anything but "separate" from the Internet, too? Perhaps they mean, though, that a cable company prioritizing its cable-TV broadcasting and its phone services over its entire Internet service would have nothing to do with net neutrality since such behavior would have nothing to do with the cable company's delivery of Internet service in general--because neither the voice or video services would be directly accessible from the Internet. If that's what they mean, then that is quite understandable. I'm not quite clear, though, on how Comcast's phone service fundamentally differs from, say, Vonage's, in terms of those phone services leveraging the Internet. So the point with respect to the video services is fairly solid; but the point about the phone service is far less clear.

My ever increasing internet bill is a "superstitious fear"? How about the class action suit im involved in with att over not giving us the agreed upon and advertised speeds or even a their minimum threshold? Im not sure how the second part could be clearer. If they offer their own phone/video offerings over their network but encapsulate it in a vpn type structure like VOIP they can free them selves from any regulation in prioritizing that traffic over another services, such as vonage, that competes directly with them. Thus giving their own service more bandwidth and "speed" than their competitors.

WaltC wrote:

Quote:

The FCC also could not prohibit network management, and it could not interfere with "measures designed to prevent or deter unauthorized or illegal activity, including copyright infringement."

As to the part about network management, I am not aware of any proposed net neutrality rules anywhere that prohibit an ISP from managing its Internet network.

You mean besdies the proposed rules issued earlier this year, or the comcast court case that went to the supreme court that caused this entire mess because the FCC decided to enforce its net neutrality principals when they were throttling bittorrent traffic? Besides they arent preventing managment, just making sure its only applied in ways that dont cripple competition and innovation.

WaltC wrote:

Quote:

Taken together, the bill's measures would gut most network neutrality rules, since they prohibit the FCC from regulating congestion management and quality of service decisions by ISPs.

How, pray tell, can the FCC "regulate Internet congestion" as it may occur daily? Obviously, such congestion is managed on a daily basis, and so it seems to me that in order for the FCC to "regulate" same they'd need to work at the boards full time every day as ISP employees so that they could "regulate" such congestion as it may occur...

Your grasp of language astounds me. That is not what was said at all. They are talking about regulating the management practices so the isp cant arbitrarily throttle services like torrents, VoIP or other streaming services like netflix that it may compete with with its own offerings. Where the hell did anyone say anything about regulating the congestion its self?

Is there anyone left in the GOP with two brain cells to rub together, or is it now purely full of knee-jerk reactionaries? "If its even remotely connected to the Obama Administration, it must be part of his Socialist Global World Government Plan to Take Over the Global! Communist!"What a bunch of retards...

ISPs have long complained that they are being unfairly targeted by network neutrality, even as backbone operators or content delivery networks would be exempt from the rules.

That's because backbone operators and content delivery networks have competitors. And Facebook or Microsoft or Google can each build their own CDN if they don't want to use Akamai, Level 3, Amazon, etc. They can't within reason each build nationwide last mile fiber, can they?

Quote:

I like the idea of slowing down the FCC. They get their foot in the door by mandating "network neutrality" which people like. The next year they might get lobbied by the RIAA/MPAA and mandate blocking all copyright infringing materials, or objectionable content, or who knows what else they'll try to block or interfere with. I don't want the FCC to get a foot in the door to start regulating broadband.

The FCC can't constitutionally regulate anything that Congress couldn't pass a law doing the same thing. They can't regulate speech, especially in the way of saying that X type of speech has to be blocked. So if that's what you're worried about, it's not a problem -- the courts won't let them do it.

All that stuff about the fairness doctrine is anachronistic nonsense. The FCC can control what gets broadcast over the air because the radio spectrum is a finite public resource. Fiber optic cable is not of the same nature: You can manufacture as many fiber optic cables as you need. You can't manufacture additional radio spectrum.

To put it another way, the Internet is far more like the phone network than it is like broadcast TV: There isn't a finite capacity available that can never be increased, but providing it is a natural monopoly that demands common carrier regulations to prevent monopoly abuse.

It's hard not to be cynical about this bill when it represents the rather odd argument the ISPs have been making about "neutrality" unfairly targeting ISPs. No one outside those ISPs is making this argument (the "search neutrality" argument).

You know the lobbyists have been hammering away on this bill in the background, handing it off to their front-man Rep like a baton at a track meet. It's just too convenient that when the FCC seem to get some traction, suddenly something like this comes up from some know-nothing Rep that just HAPPENS to have enough targeted, ambiguous language (yes, that's an oxymoron) to put huge roadblocks in the FCC's path.

Besides the fact that your ever increasing Internet bill has zero to do with anyone's idea of net neutrality (my monthly cable Internet bill has been the same for 12 years--but the service has gotten a lot better at the same time), you are aware, I hope, that the prices the ISPs charge are already regulated by the government? It's like utilities in general, for instance--when they want an increase they fly it by whatever regulatory board oversees them, first--and generally the regulators give them what they ask for.

Quote:

How about the class action suit im involved in with att over not giving us the agreed upon and advertised speeds or even a their minimum threshold?

How about it? Seriously, people sue and are sued for all kinds of things all the time--which isn't proof of anything... I know this, though: if I didn't like the services my ISP provided me I'd drop him without a qualm. I wouldn't waste time suing him, but that's just me--life is too short, I think. I'd go find a service more to my liking, instead.

Quote:

Im not sure how the second part could be clearer. If they offer their own phone/video offerings over their network but encapsulate it in a vpn type structure like VOIP they can free them selves from any regulation in prioritizing that traffic over another services, such as vonage, that competes directly with them. Thus giving their own service more bandwidth and "speed" than their competitors.

You misunderstood my statement about the phone service: what I meant "wasn't clear" was the rationale the backers have for proposing these things in the bill. IE, the point about separating the phone service from "the Internet" makes no sense if the phone service leverages the Internet--similar to how Vonage does it. It's easy to see how the video services (TV,PPV, etc.) are quite separate, I think.

Quote:

You mean besdies the proposed rules issued earlier this year, or the comcast court case that went to the supreme court that caused this entire mess because the FCC decided to enforce its net neutrality principals when they were throttling bittorrent traffic? Besides they arent preventing managment, just making sure its only applied in ways that dont cripple competition and innovation.

So, ok, aside from the fact that the court decided against the FCC (if I remember right, apologies if not), I'd appreciate your explaining to me how "bit torrent throttling" is crippling competition and innovation. What large companies heavily involved in Internet commerce today are complaining or suing an ISP for "unfairly throttling" their ability to do business. Surely, you can think of something to say besides "bittorrent." I mean, you'd just about have to to make your point, wouldn't you--unless you want to insist that all the Internet business of the world flows through bittorrent--but that's not what you are saying, is it? How about enlarging your view beyond the very, very narrow portal of bittorrent? It's easy--I do it every day...

Quote:

Your grasp of language astounds me. That is not what was said at all. They are talking about regulating the management practices so the isp cant arbitrarily throttle services like torrents, VoIP or other streaming services like netflix that it may compete with with its own offerings. Where the hell did anyone say anything about regulating the congestion its self?

Do you have the first clue about what "management practices" are? What they are are practices that *change* each and every day according to the circumstances that arise. Your notion that you can write an FCC rulebook that covers each and every item that can possibly occur that requires "network management" is unbelievably naive. I can't help you with that. But let's back of this for one instant:

Again, take the *large* view of the Internet and all of the billions if not trillions of transactions that take place on it every day around the world. In that context, "Bittorrent" is so small and insignificant as to be practically meaningless in the scope of what goes on every day on the www. I, for instance, spend hours on the Internet each day doing a lot business and lot of browsing and I never, ever have a need to use Bittorrent for anything. Really, guy, as long as you can't see the forest for the tree, you're missing the whole picture. I have no doubt whatsoever that if the ISPs were flagrantly creating status niches for various companies, to the degree that one company was getting a lot better Internet service than a competitor, there'd be lawsuits flying to hell and back already--no net neutrality rules needed--not at all. If that's happening--I surely don't see any evidence that is--anywhere.

I really dislike Republicans.,They can kiss my ass and the asses of every consumer in this country who are just honest and trying to make a living.

My Brother is a Republican and he is a vice president in Bank of America.We can not have any kkind of political discussion.Even though we are Jewish,our dad was in 4 concentration camps,and most of the bloodline was gassed he is a bigot.He puts down blacks and gays and moslems.I DO NOT !!!I have gay,lesbian,black friends.I had a few Moslem friends too over the years.We are all Human beings and in USA the constitution says we are all equal.Well not to my republic conservative brother.And lastly he says global warming is just a plot of the liberals.

That is who we deal with when it comes to these republican conservative asses.

Besides the fact that your ever increasing Internet bill has zero to do with anyone's idea of net neutrality (my monthly cable Internet bill has been the same for 12 years--but the service has gotten a lot better at the same time), you are aware, I hope, that the prices the ISPs charge are already regulated by the government? It's like utilities in general, for instance--when they want an increase they fly it by whatever regulatory board oversees them, first--and generally the regulators give them what they ask for.

Quote:

How about the class action suit im involved in with att over not giving us the agreed upon and advertised speeds or even a their minimum threshold?

How about it? Seriously, people sue and are sued for all kinds of things all the time--which isn't proof of anything... I know this, though: if I didn't like the services my ISP provided me I'd drop him without a qualm. I wouldn't waste time suing him, but that's just me--life is too short, I think. I'd go find a service more to my liking, instead.

Quote:

Im not sure how the second part could be clearer. If they offer their own phone/video offerings over their network but encapsulate it in a vpn type structure like VOIP they can free them selves from any regulation in prioritizing that traffic over another services, such as vonage, that competes directly with them. Thus giving their own service more bandwidth and "speed" than their competitors.

You misunderstood my statement about the phone service: what I meant "wasn't clear" was the rationale the backers have for proposing these things in the bill. IE, the point about separating the phone service from "the Internet" makes no sense if the phone service leverages the Internet--similar to how Vonage does it. It's easy to see how the video services (TV,PPV, etc.) are quite separate, I think.

Quote:

You mean besdies the proposed rules issued earlier this year, or the comcast court case that went to the supreme court that caused this entire mess because the FCC decided to enforce its net neutrality principals when they were throttling bittorrent traffic? Besides they arent preventing managment, just making sure its only applied in ways that dont cripple competition and innovation.

So, ok, aside from the fact that the court decided against the FCC (if I remember right, apologies if not), I'd appreciate your explaining to me how "bit torrent throttling" is crippling competition and innovation. What large companies heavily involved in Internet commerce today are complaining or suing an ISP for "unfairly throttling" their ability to do business. Surely, you can think of something to say besides "bittorrent." I mean, you'd just about have to to make your point, wouldn't you--unless you want to insist that all the Internet business of the world flows through bittorrent--but that's not what you are saying, is it? How about enlarging your view beyond the very, very narrow portal of bittorrent? It's easy--I do it every day...

Quote:

Your grasp of language astounds me. That is not what was said at all. They are talking about regulating the management practices so the isp cant arbitrarily throttle services like torrents, VoIP or other streaming services like netflix that it may compete with with its own offerings. Where the hell did anyone say anything about regulating the congestion its self?

Do you have the first clue about what "management practices" are? What they are are practices that *change* each and every day according to the circumstances that arise. Your notion that you can write an FCC rulebook that covers each and every item that can possibly occur that requires "network management" is unbelievably naive. I can't help you with that. But let's back of this for one instant:

Again, take the *large* view of the Internet and all of the billions if not trillions of transactions that take place on it every day around the world. In that context, "Bittorrent" is so small and insignificant as to be practically meaningless in the scope of what goes on every day on the www. I, for instance, spend hours on the Internet each day doing a lot business and lot of browsing and I never, ever have a need to use Bittorrent for anything. Really, guy, as long as you can't see the forest for the tree, you're missing the whole picture. I have no doubt whatsoever that if the ISPs were flagrantly creating status niches for various companies, to the degree that one company was getting a lot better Internet service than a competitor, there'd be lawsuits flying to hell and back already--no net neutrality rules needed--not at all. If that's happening--I surely don't see any evidence that is--anywhere.

Your responses to the quotes have nothing to do with the quotes. I've read this three times I have no idea what you are responding to. How are you using the snark / sarcasm emoticon?

It isn't about that R or D before their name anymore, it doesn't matter who is in power they are all the same.

Instead it should be about big vs little government, the "man" needs to get the hell out of my business, life and generally just get out of the way.

I get so tired of people desiring the nanny state, if you don't like a provider vote with you feet and pick someone else, but please for Pete sake stop asking the government to hold your hand, make some bad business go away or generally remove my freedoms.

Can any of you actually say you trust any of those clowns in your state gov or the US gov? If your answer is no than why fight to give them more power?

At it's heart this push for "net neutrality" is just a way for the FCC to open the door to censorship and control of the internet as they currently do with TV and Radio. It will lead to more regulations and conditions than can be born by the average citizen so freedoms will be lost on the last truly free medium available to the masses to exercise free speech.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

It isn't about that R or D before their name anymore, it doesn't matter who is in power they are all the same.

Instead it should be about big vs little government, the "man" needs to get the hell out of my business, life and generally just get out of the way.

I get so tired of people desiring the nanny state, if you don't like a provider vote with you feet and pick someone else, but please for Pete sake stop asking the government to hold your hand, make some bad business go away or generally remove my freedoms.

Can any of you actually say you trust any of those clowns in your state gov or the US gov? If your answer is no than why fight to give them more power?

At it's heart this push for "net neutrality" is just a way for the FCC to open the door to censorship and control of the internet as they currently do with TV and Radio. It will lead to more regulations and conditions than can be born by the average citizen so freedoms will be lost on the last truly free medium available to the masses to exercise free speech.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

No, it's not. And you're an idiot.Net Neutrality has absolutely fuckall to do with the Fairness Doctrine. Stop watching Fox News. Stop listening to Oxycodone Limbaugh. I tell you what though, I trust the FCC a hell of a lot more than I trust you.

You have been trolled. WaltC is well-known for being one of the most narcissistic people on the face of the planet. If something doesn't affect him directly, it doesn't exist. No amount of arguing or citing facts to the contrary will change his mind. He appears in every thread on this topic in the last several years saying exactly the same thing, and giving exactly the same "works for me!" reply when somebody proves that it is in fact happening.

Though I will say one thing: I have never seen him say anything bad about Comcast, though I have seen him rarely say things against TWC, AT&T, and others. I have my suspicions about that, but I can't say for sure.

I'm guessing it will be your last, as this article indubitably came up on your anti-science/anti-NN/anti-evolution/anti-socialism/anti-AGW article aggregator app on your PC that the Right seems to be using more and more often to provide "hit-n-runs" on progressive news sites.

It isn't about that R or D before their name anymore, it doesn't matter who is in power they are all the same.

Instead it should be about big vs little government, the "man" needs to get the hell out of my business, life and generally just get out of the way.

I get so tired of people desiring the nanny state, if you don't like a provider vote with you feet and pick someone else, but please for Pete sake stop asking the government to hold your hand, make some bad business go away or generally remove my freedoms.

Can any of you actually say you trust any of those clowns in your state gov or the US gov? If your answer is no than why fight to give them more power?

At it's heart this push for "net neutrality" is just a way for the FCC to open the door to censorship and control of the internet as they currently do with TV and Radio. It will lead to more regulations and conditions than can be born by the average citizen so freedoms will be lost on the last truly free medium available to the masses to exercise free speech.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

I trust them to work for "The people" more than I trust huge corporations to care about anything but money. I think it's the lesser of two necessary evils. I would love to live in an agrarian society with no services or industry but that's not gonna happen.

In other words, whatever rules the FCC develops would need to be applied equally to Verizon, YouTube, Google, etc. It's not at all clear from the bill what this means; the target does not appear to be actual content (i.e., YouTube somehow displaying a "neutral" set of videos) but the connections between and among providers that take place outside the public-facing ISP networks.

I do not understand this new "content provider neutrality" meme. What the heck does that mean?